“A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.”http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Dhimwits.htm

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

—Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Interesting, because so many Muslims claim that they have some of the best laws to protect women in the world. I very strongly disagree.

Was out for dinner with a couple friends a few weeks ago. A couple I really didn’t know all that well. We were having fun & discussing religion especially Christianity. That was okay but he went out of his way to make a big deal to say

“Islam has some of the best laws to protect women in the world”.

I was surprised & shocked. My lady friend couldn’t hold back and said,

“No, that is definitely not true. They have some of the WORST treatment of women.”

I can’t remember the details but he went on about how Christianity treats women. My friend said,

“I don’t support Christianity either”

which seemed to neutralize him for a moment. My friend pointed out a few recent horrendous acts by Islam/Muslims lately. He freaked out and yelled,

“You’ve never been there, you don’t know what you’re talking about”

Needless to say, things were very uncomfortable at that point. So I stepped in to change the subject. Thing is, he’d never been anywhere near a Muslim country at all. Said we must be reading the “wrong translation.” Well, he & his girl friend were only 24ish and honestly had no Idea what he was talking about.

My lady friend absolutely despises Islam in every way. She’s been studying it since this kid was born. She sees it as totally offensive and anyone who tries to tell her that Islam is good for women better lean forward into the wind. And that’s exactly what happened. It made for a short evening though.

Once again I am reminded of what I saw waiting for the campus shuttle yesterday and I admit I’ve said this else where, but it troubles me greatly.

In 5 min. time I saw 3 or 4 women enter the university building I was waiting in to keep warm. All wore the hajab (spelling?), bodies fully covered with what looked similar to habits (what nuns wear). One was without a doubt with her husband and small son. Her face and head completely covered and she too wore what looked similar to a habit. Only thing showing were her beautiful eyes surrounded by a nice dark complexion. I thought, it’s a shame she must hide such beauty. Is she really afraid she will be raped without it? Will her husband beat her to death if she doesn’t wear it? Why does it seem Muslim men don’t have their brains in their skulls, but down much lower? Why does it seem these men are so primitive in thought that they see the fur, the crowning glories on women’s heads as a turn on? I think a lion’s mane is quite attractive and beautiful, but I know better than to touch it. Why is it a religion that’s so primitive in nature is believed by so many and instills unrealistic terror?

Anyway, you get the picture as to what was running through my head as watched these women, each with their own intrinsic beauty hidden, enter the building, in separate groups with at least one male and mentally questioned their religion. If not for the cold, I would have taken off my hoodie to my sweat shirt and allowed my long hair to hang freely within their view in defiance of their primitive, oppressive, and archiac beliefs.

However, I also felt sorry and sadden for these women. Oh they will tell you they are not oppressed and don’t feel oppressed, but if they fear rape and alike so much, scared to show their faces, and can never be without male companionship in public, they are lying to themselves and have been so deluded, as well as had so much fear instilled in them, that they feel more comfortable with the hajab and naked without it. They have been brainwashed since birth to accept the oppression and feel comfortable within it, yet fearful without it. It’s really terribly sad and while they do not feel the misery of religion, I feel it for them. :-(

I can only hope that such an oppressive, domineering, brainwashing, fear instilling, primitive religion does not take over the U.S. and/or Europe, because women like me would surely be the first to die and show that religion IS the source of misery. The problem is, few people may see that religion is the source of misery as they kill so many freethinking and independent women. :-( And Christianity is not without it’s flaws towards women either- the more extreme the Christian beliefs, the more oppressed women are.

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Let’s maintain some perspective on this issue please. There are more than a billion Muslims. It’s ridiculous to talk about them as if they were all the same, or all believed the same things. Yes, there are far too many Muslim extremists, but most Muslims really don’t care about world domination or “death to infidels” or any such nonsense. They just want to get on with their lives in peace, like the rest of us.

This is true for most religions; only a small part (5-30% ?) of their adherants are extremists who feel violence is acceptable. However, what percent of humanists do you think are in favor of violence to further their philosophy? Islam probably has the highest ratio of exremists now, but most religions generate their own violent component. The sooner the world becomes civilized enough to dispense with religion, the sooner we’ll have a more caring, accepting international society.

40 percent of muslims in the UK want Sharia law, 6 percent believe the 7/7 bombers were acting according to the true principals of Islam and 7 percent think suicide attacks are ok on Military targets.

What is interesting is the disconnect between those who think those elements do not exist within islam, 64 percent of Mulsims think the radicals are a tiny minority while 58 percent of non-muslims in the UK think it is wrong for the police to view muslims with greater suspicion than non-muslims.

Muslims tried to get Sharia law passed here in Canada to be applied in all divorce cases where the people are Muslim. Several Muslim organizations are abusing the Human Rights Tribunals to stop freedom of speech and try and chill the press into cowtowing to Islam. They want to be free from all criticism and free to spread their hate in private. There are a few high profile Canadian Imams who have been shown to spread radicalized Islam and the government does nothing.

Like it or not, Islam is breeding all ‘native’ religions out of existence, and will be the dominate religion in Europe. There is no if’s about it. And I would have to think the problems of the Middle East, and the demonstrations in Denmark and the abuse of court systems like in Canada will become increasinky prevailent until Islamic Law is supreme and Muslims are free from all restraints placed on a free pluralistic soceity.

Well, see, that’s where I have a problem with Islam becoming the dominate religion. Right now, Christianity is dominant in the U.S. and acts like the 888 one, are trying to be slid in unnoticed, but it gets noticed by both Secularist and the religious who insist on Separation of Church and State. Now imagine if Islamics tried that in the U.S. by imposing Sharia law. There would be a lot of noise on all sides and well… the extremists would be raising their boistrus and ugly heads- they would be louder than the rest of us and they would make sure they are louder. We thought 9/11 was bad, I think it would look like nothing in comparison. It would probably get pretty ugly, but that’s just my opinion.

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Radical Muslim paramilitary compounds flourishing across the United States
Islamberg not the only radical Muslim compound flourishing in North America

By Judi McLeod
Monday, May 21, 2007

“Islamberg is just one of what is thought to be a half dozen radical Muslim paramilitary compounds flourishing across the United States, this one nestled in dense forest at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York. Canada, home to at least one such compound, is no safe ground. “

“Now that the photos of the two unidentified FBI types have been published, we will undoubtedly hear that they were merely working undercover. But some sticklers would consider saying cheese from the dinner table of the enemy is over the top.”http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover052107.htm

I was unaware that Hitler met with the Muslim Grand Mufti in the 1930’s. They had good relations. That Islamic fascist regime has never stopped growing ever since. Now, they’ve infiltrated many different countries across several continents. We have video of their meeting -

Muslims tried to get Sharia law passed here in Canada to be applied in all divorce cases where the people are Muslim.

“Muslims”? Which Muslims? The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposed the idea, as did a great many other Muslims. Once again, let’s remember that Muslims are a large and diverse group. Stereotypes are seldom accurate and never fair.

Several Muslim organizations are abusing the Human Rights Tribunals to stop freedom of speech and try and chill the press into cowtowing to Islam. ... There are a few high profile Canadian Imams who have been shown to spread radicalized Islam and the government does nothing.

You don’t see the irony of putting those two statements in the same paragraph?

Muslims tried to get Sharia law passed here in Canada to be applied in all divorce cases where the people are Muslim.

“Muslims”? Which Muslims? The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposed the idea, as did a great many other Muslims. Once again, let’s remember that Muslims are a large and diverse group. Stereotypes are seldom accurate and never fair.

Several Muslim organizations are abusing the Human Rights Tribunals to stop freedom of speech and try and chill the press into cowtowing to Islam. ... There are a few high profile Canadian Imams who have been shown to spread radicalized Islam and the government does nothing.

You don’t see the irony of putting those two statements in the same paragraph?

Being able to criticize government, or a religion or political figure is not the same as telling people to spread Islam or any idea with violence, nor does recruiting terrorists fall into that category.

There seems to be a growing trend that to be tolerant one has to sacrfice our commitment to tolerence on an altar of liberalism. We either tolerate the people out to destroy the system, people who are prepared to carry out action, or we simply give up any semblence of a multicultural society and all that that entails. Currently several organizations are dragging Canadian writers and magazines before tribunals (inwhich defendants lose 100 percent of the time) for crimes as grevious as telling the truth and citing facts about muslims. The audacity. But there is supposed to be some irony here? That being able to speak the truth about a problem is the same as recruiting people to blow themselves up are the same thing. They are not, they will never be, and I fail to see any irony here.

And to be blunt, I didn’t use any stereotypes when talking about muslims. I merely used the general term, “muslims” without stipulating which group. Do you contend that the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice is not made up of muslims, or that no muslim wanted Sharia law? If so what studies do you have to support that “muslims” did not want Sharia law in Canada. Can you possibly show me what sterotype(s) I used when talking about “muslims”? So let’s be accurate, it was a generalized statement made without additional qualification as to who the parties were, it was not, in any sense, stereotyping muslims. Sure, overly broad generalizations are unfair, but my generalization was neither overbroad, or unfair.

Currently several organizations are dragging Canadian writers and magazines before tribunals (inwhich defendants lose 100 percent of the time) for crimes as grevious as telling the truth and citing facts about muslims.

Example(s), please?

And to be blunt, I didn’t use any stereotypes when talking about muslims. I merely used the general term, “muslims” without stipulating which group.

And that’s not stereotyping, eh?

Do you contend that the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice is not made up of muslims, or that no muslim wanted Sharia law?

No, I contend that Muslims are not made up solely of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, and that referring to “muslims” without qualification falsely implies that most or all Muslims want Sharia law. It makes as much sense as claiming that “Christians” want prayer in schools.

If so what studies do you have to support that “muslims” did not want Sharia law in Canada.

I don’t think it’s up to me to cite studies, since I’m not the one making the claim; but I can tell you that the Canadian Council of Muslim Women is on the record as opposing it. If you want to claim that “muslims” want Sharia law, you need to show that your statement applies broadly to most or all Muslims. Otherwise you’re stereotyping all Muslims based on the characteristics of only a few.

Generalized statements are not stereotypes, in themselves. The insistence they are lessons what a stereotype is, and makes the idea of stereotypes overly broad. By your definition of the word, unless one makes exact exemptions for every statement, then one is stereotyping, never mind that the word stereotype refers to uncritical or prejudiced generalized statements, and not statements in general. The statement, muslims are towel heads, is a stereotype, muslims tried to get Sharia law passed here in Canada, is not, for very clear reasons.

For one, I never insisted all muslims want Sharia law, nor did I specify most, or a minority. The statement doesn’t conform to any derogatory mental picture of muslims. The statement was a fact. There are muslims in Canada who wanted Sharia Law. Was I wrong to use an overly generalized statement, sure in so much as when one is debating, the premises should be as clear and precise as possible to avoid certain fallacies. If you had simply made the point that there was opposition and that all muslims didn’t want Sharia, I would have agreed, but you have to try and devalue the legitimacy of the statement, and that it happened, by trying to poison the source.

This is the same kind of rhetoric that pops up when people criticize muslims and people begin saying it’s racist - although the insistence that one CAN be racist towards muslims is a racist statement and a stereotype (see how that works?). There is no race in Islam, it’s a religion. And I am aware you didn’t make this argument, but the one you have made is similar and equally absurd.

Another thing, when I told the story about the women I saw in full hajab, I was speaking about them, which is not a stereotype either. All my thoughts were referring to them and women like them. They are an example of how oppressive religious extremism can be. There are women who are Sufi (a mystical branch of Islam) who don’t wear the hajab, but this does not exempt the extremists from criticism nor does it stop them from oppressing women either. The extremist, be they Christian or Islamic are very loud in comparasion to other sects and IF they had their way, would be oppressive to everyone. That’s the irony of it all.

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report